Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so safety is covered. The description adds two things annotations cannot: that output is 'bounded' (truncated/limited) and that account-bound computer:read OAuth is required. It doesn't say whether output is truncated per-call, whether statuses are terminal, or whether polling is expected, so it is not fully transparent.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope, then the sibling differentiation. Every clause adds usable information and there is no filler or repetition of the title.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a single-parameter, read-only tool with no output schema, this covers action, scoping, alternative, output bound and auth requirement. The remaining gap is that 'bounded output' is left unquantified and no return shape is hinted at, which matters slightly given there is no output schema.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% and the schema already explains the id is 'returned by the corresponding start/list operation; not a device PIN'. The description only narrows the origin to job IDs from exza_start_background_job, which is a modest restatement rather than new meaning. Baseline 3 applies when the schema carries the parameter documentation.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('Read the status and bounded output of an EXZA background job by ID') and explicitly distinguishes itself from the closest sibling, exza_read_interactive_process_output. An agent can tell which of the two read-style tools applies without opening either schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Names the alternative tool and gives the discriminator: this targets job IDs created by exza_start_background_job. That is a clear selection rule. It stops short of stating exclusions such as what to do if the ID is unknown or job has finished, which would be a full 5.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.